IF WE HELD a Nova Scotia Idol contest to pick The Most Obsessive Enforcement of the Silliest Rule, the choice would be easy.

The winner would have to be the province’s crackdown on stores that help customers use their store-purchased wine kits to make wine on the premises.

This service — and it is a service for people who haven’t space for winemaking at home or who lack the physical capacity to manage the lifting involved — is perfectly legal in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

There’s no evidence this winemaking option has devastated provincial liquor revenues or damaged the social fabric in those provinces.

It’s just a smart business innovation serving a niche market — no different than the new Tire Valet franchise in Halifax that will change your tires or install new ones in your driveway.

But helping customers make wine kits is treated as a form of bootlegging by the Nova Scotia government and its Crown-owned Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation.

The corporation is in court seeking an order to shut down two U-vint retailers, one of whom, Ross Harrington of Halifax, has been offering the service and fighting NSLC for years.

And Finance Minister Maureen MacDonald, who is responsible for NSLC, says it’s not a priority for her to change the policy or the law.

The minister may not think this is important. But it is. Getting rid of silly regulations should always be a priority. Any time a senior minister fails to do that, or adopts a can’t-be-bothered attitude, the whole business community, not just those directly affected, takes notice.

Persisting in foolish rules shouts from the rooftops that you are not really serious about creating a healthy, competitive and innovative business environment. It is highly effective don’t-invest-here marketing.

Ms. MacDonald also told The Chronicle Herald last week she doesn’t know why Nova Scotia hasn’t followed other provinces in allowing in-store U-vinting. Good grief. If small retailers are being dragged into court, the minister responsible for the policy should at least know why this is supposed to be necessary.

But then, the obvious answer is: It isn’t necessary and it isn’t smart policy either.